Bar & Bench News Network
It appears that the four-year legal battle between Jet Airways and Sahara India has come to an end. The Bombay High Court rejected the petition filed by Sahara claiming Rs 2,000 crore ($440 million) as the total sum for the takeover instead of the renegotiated amount of Rs 1,450 crore ($322 million) agreed between Jet and Sahara during the 2006 takeover deal of Sahara Airline, according to TOI.
Jet Airways purchased Sahara in 2006 after which there were disputes regarding the valuation of the company. In April 2007, a three member Arbitration panel cleared a buy out deal for Rs 1,450 crore, which many analysts claim a 40% reduction from the originally agreed price. Harish Salve had represented Jet Airways before the 3 member arbitration panel comprising of British Judge Lord Stein and Supreme Court Justices S P Bharucha and Jeevan Reddy.
Business Standard which had followed the dispute in great detail reported that under the 2007 Arbitration agreement, Jet was to pay the balance Rs 550 crore by 2011. However, a problem began in March 2008, when Jet released only Rs 100.4 crore (instead of the agreed Rs 137.5 crore), after deducting the amount claimed by income tax authorities.
The agreement stipulated the concession in purchase price would automatically stand withdrawn and Jet would be liable to pay Rs 2,000 crore (Rs 550 crore in addition to Rs 1,450 crore) if it defaulted on paying the entire sum. However Jet argued that the liability to pay the additional Rs 550 crore would arise only if Sahara's owners performed their indemnity obligation to reimburse Jet for any undisclosed tax liability prior to the takeover of the airline.
The Bombay HIgh Court yesterday held that Jet was liable to pay Sahara only Rs. 1,450 crore and Sahara had failed to meet its obligation to disclose and pay its tax liability, hence cannot claim additional Rs 550 crore. The Court further added that Jet was wrong in deducting the tax amount from its instalments and therefore, the Court imposed 9% interest on pending instalment amount since March 2008.
Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud held that Jet Airways was liable to pay Rs 478 crore, which includes interest at 9 per cent per annum. The amount was computed on the principal amount of Rs 402 crore.
Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Zal Andhyarujina were assisted by Jet Airways’s long term counsel Gagrat & Co.
DSK Legal’s Partner Jatin Pore briefed Senior Advocate Pradeep Sancheti who appeared for Sahara.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- 14-year epic battle draws to a close as Bombay High court rules against liaison offices for foreign firms
- Bombay High Court admits appeal against Shah Rukh Khan
- Bayer continues patent linkage battle in Delhi High Court
- Jet files petition in Bombay High Court, NAG files petition in Chennai High Court
- Ambani vs. Ambani: All eyes and ears on the Supreme Court as legal heavyweights begin the battle
- Vodafone’s call to Bombay High Court gets them relief from the IT Department - Dutt Menon Dunmorrsett appear for the telecom giant
- Chief Justices being sworn-in at Guwahati, Bombay, Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










